I would be generalizing except for one fact. Bush has only run one ad. If he has only run one, and one is criticized, then that isn't taking the exception and applying it as the rule.
What?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
An ineffective attempt to stop criticism for a position no Democrat has while referred to as "some" is bad for Democracy?
The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
You said this because you were explaining this nice bit of reasoning...
There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking.
You claim that this Bush ad is the exception however generally all the other Bush ads are ok and shouldn't be pulled. You just have to make this one time exception.
You make it sound like this is something that would be rarely brought up.
However in reality Bush hasn't run dozens of ads and you or the Democrats are taking issue with just one. He has only created and run one ad. (The ad may have had a buy for multiple spots but it is the same ad)
It's dishonest to claim you are making the rare exception when the sample size is one.
So to summarize, Bush hasn't chilled anyone's ability to speak. Not a single Democrat has stopped speaking about Iraq contrary to what anyone may claim. Secondly the Democrats have asked for Bush not to run and pull the only ad he has created thus far on a baseless claim. Asking the opposition not to run ads that state his positions (preemptive) and how they are different from "some" is not seen as chilling critique, criticism or discussion?!?
Lastly Bush clearly states he is for preemptive strikes against terrorists. How can any Democrat be upset about that ad? It clearly states Bushes position strongly and all the Democrats (even those who voted for the action) have said that it was wrong to act preemptively. It should make Bush an easy target because he hasn't obscured the position at all. He laid it out there plain as day.
The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
You said this because you were explaining this nice bit of reasoning...
There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking.
You claim that this Bush ad is the exception however generally all the other Bush ads are ok and shouldn't be pulled. You just have to make this one time exception.
You make it sound like this is something that would be rarely brought up.
However in reality Bush hasn't run dozens of ads and you or the Democrats are taking issue with just one. He has only created and run one ad. (The ad may have had a buy for multiple spots but it is the same ad)
It's dishonest to claim you are making the rare exception when the sample size is one.
Oh, I get it now. The "sample size of one" is representative of every Bush ad; therefore I am not opposed to the content of the actual ad in question, but to the fact that it's from Bush. THAT MAKES SENSE. The following context is crystal clear:
You're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So to summarize, Bush hasn't chilled anyone's ability to speak. Not a single Democrat has stopped speaking about Iraq contrary to what anyone may claim. Secondly the Democrats have asked for Bush not to run and pull the only ad he has created thus far on a baseless claim. Asking the opposition not to run ads that state his positions (preemptive) and how they are different from "some" is not seen as chilling critique, criticism or discussion?!?
Guess what? You're generalizing again. I'm not opposed to ads that state positions, but to ads that state positions on Democrats as supporters of terrorism and state positions against dissent.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly Bush clearly states he is for preemptive strikes against terrorists. How can any Democrat be upset about that ad? It clearly states Bushes position strongly and all the Democrats (even those who voted for the action) have said that it was wrong to act preemptively. It should make Bush an easy target because he hasn't obscured the position at all. He laid it out there plain as day.
Now you're leaving out specifics. The ad goes, "Tell [Democrats] to support the President?s policy of preemptive self-defense.? Josh Marshall said that "I haven?t heard any Democrat say we shouldn?t attack first anyone who is going to attack us." Your President is trying to convey the idea that Democrats would allow terrorists to attack us domestically- in addition to attacking their right to dissent in other areas. Can you understand why there would be an outrage?
Oh, I get it now. The "sample size of one" is representative of every Bush ad; therefore I am not opposed to the content of the actual ad in question, but to the fact that it's from Bush. THAT MAKES SENSE. The following context is crystal clear:
No wonder you don't support drug legalization. You would make even less sense. The sample size of one isn't representative. It is the actual number. You are the one who needs to explain your exception. You claim yourself that the two issues (issues and stopping criticism) aren't related but happen to be in this one instance. I don't really care about your motivations for the exception because I don't believe there any reason to make the logical leap you choose to do. For me there is no exception, the reasoning stands alone. You are the one claiming the exception with no good backing.
Quote:
You're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
You do realize that when you say but.. you basically invalidate the entire previous statement. Show the capacity in which dissent was repressed. You make the claim, but there is no support. Democrats don't like being attacked during a campaign. The words that come to mind regarding that are "tough shit." I suppose when Republicans claim that Democratic ads are attempting to portray the President badly, distort his positions, or link him to unpopular positions, you are going to hold their feet to the fire.
I say bull because I've already given examples where it has happened and you haven't condemned them at all. Hey Shawn, what does a NAACP ad relating Bush to the dragging death of a black man "imply." How about the ad showing Bush pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff? What does that "imply?" I suppose you are going to condemn the DNC and NAACP for those ads right? I've asked you directly about those ads and I will of course watch you ignore the question. You are too partisan to admit that politics is politics. That Republicans are going to run favorable ads towards Republicans and unfavorable towards Democrats is only shocking in the Shawn-iverse. The rest of us live in reality where for we know both parties campaign against each other.
Quote:
Guess what? You're generalizing again. I'm not opposed to ads that state positions, but to ads that state positions on Democrats as supporters of terrorism and state positions against dissent.
My reasoning stands regardless of the party involved. You are the one making the exception so justify it. If someone claimed that Republicans would stop campaigning on an issue because of a Democratic ad, I would call bull. Especially if the ad attempted to misstate the Republican position. I know it would, if anything lead to more speech attempting to insure the position is properly known and stated. You make the claim, say it is an exception and do so with no proof and no good reasoning.
Quote:
Now you're leaving out specifics. The ad goes, "Tell [Democrats] to support the President?s policy of preemptive self-defense.? Josh Marshall said that "I haven?t heard any Democrat say we shouldn?t attack first anyone who is going to attack us." Your President is trying to convey the idea that Democrats would allow terrorists to attack us domestically- in addition to attacking their right to dissent in other areas. Can you understand why there would be an outrage? [/B]
Josh needs to get his hearing checked. Secondly he intentionally misstates the Bush position. Bush went well beyond someone trying to attack us domestically. He declared that he would attack countries that harbored or supported terrorists and destroy their means of acting even within that country. It is a very clear "with us or against us" view.
Democrats, if anything should advertise that view and then advertise their own as "We wouldn't allow terrorists to attack us deomstically but we aren't going to topple foreign governments to insure we like who is governing abroad." We are protectors of Americans but we are not imperialists.
See it isn't that hard. Since I read both sides of the debate, it isn't hard for me to state the other side's case for them. Let both sides state it, let America pick. That is the point of elections you know.
Bush created a doctrine of pre-emption in the run-up to the war with Iraq as he warned that he won't wait to act against terrorists or nations that harbor them. Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman supported war with Iraq, but have criticized his pre-emption policy and his handling of postwar Iraq.
Again we don't have to go over whether preemption was right. Bush declares it was and states it clearly. You don't have to take his word for it, but the point is that those that disagree are against the preemptive action he took. Don't try to doublespeak it or hide from it. Just embrace it and hope it is the winning issue. Dean has done this and do you think if someone accused him of supporting terrorists it would stick or shut him up?
I guess I give Democrats more credit than you do Shawn. The claim of stopping dissent has been made repeatedly by you. There is not an iota of evidence to even suggest it is anything more than a false claim. There isn't a single Democrat that is going to shut up because of this ad. If anything I would expect them to print up some bright fluorescent stickers saying "Hell no preemption isn't right." "Bush war is a boondoggle for Haliburton", etc.
Nick, pretend all you like, but this 'singular' ad ties into some previous evens. Specifically those where people were forced to keep quiet shortly after September 11th. You can pretend that there was no effort to shut people up, especially those that disagreed with Bush. But I don't think even you believe that this didn't happen.
So, an ad like this should bring up some bad memories for any sentient life form.
Nick, pretend all you like, but this 'singular' ad ties into some previous evens. Specifically those where people were forced to keep quiet shortly after September 11th. You can pretend that there was no effort to shut people up, especially those that disagreed with Bush. But I don't think even you believe that this didn't happen.
So, an ad like this should bring up some bad memories for any sentient life form.
They were forced how? By the will of the American people calling for a time of unity? Or was there some temporary police state that I missed arresting people for treasonous statements?
You make the contention of force. You show me how and who.
They were forced how? By the will of the American people calling for a time of unity? Or was there some temporary police state that I missed arresting people for treasonous statements?
You make the contention of force. You show me how and who.
Nick
Bill Mahr, Politically Incorrect.
Not by the will of the American people, but by the will of the almighty advertisers.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I would be generalizing except for one fact. Bush has only run one ad. If he has only run one, and one is criticized, then that isn't taking the exception and applying it as the rule.
Originally posted by trumptman
An ineffective attempt to stop criticism for a position no Democrat has while referred to as "some" is bad for Democracy?
Again, that's not what I said.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Again, that's not what I said.
You said...
The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
You said this because you were explaining this nice bit of reasoning...
There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking.
You claim that this Bush ad is the exception however generally all the other Bush ads are ok and shouldn't be pulled. You just have to make this one time exception.
You make it sound like this is something that would be rarely brought up.
However in reality Bush hasn't run dozens of ads and you or the Democrats are taking issue with just one. He has only created and run one ad. (The ad may have had a buy for multiple spots but it is the same ad)
It's dishonest to claim you are making the rare exception when the sample size is one.
So to summarize, Bush hasn't chilled anyone's ability to speak. Not a single Democrat has stopped speaking about Iraq contrary to what anyone may claim. Secondly the Democrats have asked for Bush not to run and pull the only ad he has created thus far on a baseless claim. Asking the opposition not to run ads that state his positions (preemptive) and how they are different from "some" is not seen as chilling critique, criticism or discussion?!?
Lastly Bush clearly states he is for preemptive strikes against terrorists. How can any Democrat be upset about that ad? It clearly states Bushes position strongly and all the Democrats (even those who voted for the action) have said that it was wrong to act preemptively. It should make Bush an easy target because he hasn't obscured the position at all. He laid it out there plain as day.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly Bush clearly states he is for preemptive strikes against terrorists. How can any Democrat be upset about that ad?
I just have one question. when has Bush used a preemptive strike against terrorists?
Originally posted by trumptman
You said...
The exception is not for any Bush ad but for the one in question.
You said this because you were explaining this nice bit of reasoning...
There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking.
You claim that this Bush ad is the exception however generally all the other Bush ads are ok and shouldn't be pulled. You just have to make this one time exception.
You make it sound like this is something that would be rarely brought up.
However in reality Bush hasn't run dozens of ads and you or the Democrats are taking issue with just one. He has only created and run one ad. (The ad may have had a buy for multiple spots but it is the same ad)
It's dishonest to claim you are making the rare exception when the sample size is one.
Oh, I get it now. The "sample size of one" is representative of every Bush ad; therefore I am not opposed to the content of the actual ad in question, but to the fact that it's from Bush. THAT MAKES SENSE.
You're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
Originally posted by trumptman
So to summarize, Bush hasn't chilled anyone's ability to speak. Not a single Democrat has stopped speaking about Iraq contrary to what anyone may claim. Secondly the Democrats have asked for Bush not to run and pull the only ad he has created thus far on a baseless claim. Asking the opposition not to run ads that state his positions (preemptive) and how they are different from "some" is not seen as chilling critique, criticism or discussion?!?
Guess what? You're generalizing again. I'm not opposed to ads that state positions, but to ads that state positions on Democrats as supporters of terrorism and state positions against dissent.
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly Bush clearly states he is for preemptive strikes against terrorists. How can any Democrat be upset about that ad? It clearly states Bushes position strongly and all the Democrats (even those who voted for the action) have said that it was wrong to act preemptively. It should make Bush an easy target because he hasn't obscured the position at all. He laid it out there plain as day.
Now you're leaving out specifics. The ad goes, "Tell [Democrats] to support the President?s policy of preemptive self-defense.? Josh Marshall said that "I haven?t heard any Democrat say we shouldn?t attack first anyone who is going to attack us." Your President is trying to convey the idea that Democrats would allow terrorists to attack us domestically- in addition to attacking their right to dissent in other areas. Can you understand why there would be an outrage?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh, I get it now. The "sample size of one" is representative of every Bush ad; therefore I am not opposed to the content of the actual ad in question, but to the fact that it's from Bush. THAT MAKES SENSE.
No wonder you don't support drug legalization. You would make even less sense. The sample size of one isn't representative. It is the actual number. You are the one who needs to explain your exception. You claim yourself that the two issues (issues and stopping criticism) aren't related but happen to be in this one instance. I don't really care about your motivations for the exception because I don't believe there any reason to make the logical leap you choose to do. For me there is no exception, the reasoning stands alone. You are the one claiming the exception with no good backing.
Quote:
You're generalizing. There's no relationship between "associating someone with a position that isn't theirs" and "stopping them from stating their position" generally speaking. But implying that Democrats indirectly or directly support terrorists because they criticize the President in other areas IS attacking dissent in some capacity.
You do realize that when you say but.. you basically invalidate the entire previous statement. Show the capacity in which dissent was repressed. You make the claim, but there is no support. Democrats don't like being attacked during a campaign. The words that come to mind regarding that are "tough shit." I suppose when Republicans claim that Democratic ads are attempting to portray the President badly, distort his positions, or link him to unpopular positions, you are going to hold their feet to the fire.
I say bull because I've already given examples where it has happened and you haven't condemned them at all. Hey Shawn, what does a NAACP ad relating Bush to the dragging death of a black man "imply." How about the ad showing Bush pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff? What does that "imply?" I suppose you are going to condemn the DNC and NAACP for those ads right? I've asked you directly about those ads and I will of course watch you ignore the question. You are too partisan to admit that politics is politics. That Republicans are going to run favorable ads towards Republicans and unfavorable towards Democrats is only shocking in the Shawn-iverse. The rest of us live in reality where for we know both parties campaign against each other.
Guess what? You're generalizing again. I'm not opposed to ads that state positions, but to ads that state positions on Democrats as supporters of terrorism and state positions against dissent.
My reasoning stands regardless of the party involved. You are the one making the exception so justify it. If someone claimed that Republicans would stop campaigning on an issue because of a Democratic ad, I would call bull. Especially if the ad attempted to misstate the Republican position. I know it would, if anything lead to more speech attempting to insure the position is properly known and stated. You make the claim, say it is an exception and do so with no proof and no good reasoning.
Now you're leaving out specifics. The ad goes, "Tell [Democrats] to support the President?s policy of preemptive self-defense.? Josh Marshall said that "I haven?t heard any Democrat say we shouldn?t attack first anyone who is going to attack us." Your President is trying to convey the idea that Democrats would allow terrorists to attack us domestically- in addition to attacking their right to dissent in other areas. Can you understand why there would be an outrage? [/B]
Josh needs to get his hearing checked. Secondly he intentionally misstates the Bush position. Bush went well beyond someone trying to attack us domestically. He declared that he would attack countries that harbored or supported terrorists and destroy their means of acting even within that country. It is a very clear "with us or against us" view.
Democrats, if anything should advertise that view and then advertise their own as "We wouldn't allow terrorists to attack us deomstically but we aren't going to topple foreign governments to insure we like who is governing abroad." We are protectors of Americans but we are not imperialists.
See it isn't that hard. Since I read both sides of the debate, it isn't hard for me to state the other side's case for them. Let both sides state it, let America pick. That is the point of elections you know.
Salon on Bush ad
Bush created a doctrine of pre-emption in the run-up to the war with Iraq as he warned that he won't wait to act against terrorists or nations that harbor them. Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman supported war with Iraq, but have criticized his pre-emption policy and his handling of postwar Iraq.
Common Dreams
Win WIthout War-Advocating Alternatives to Preemptive War
No Democratic groups on that list right?
Again we don't have to go over whether preemption was right. Bush declares it was and states it clearly. You don't have to take his word for it, but the point is that those that disagree are against the preemptive action he took. Don't try to doublespeak it or hide from it. Just embrace it and hope it is the winning issue. Dean has done this and do you think if someone accused him of supporting terrorists it would stick or shut him up?
I guess I give Democrats more credit than you do Shawn. The claim of stopping dissent has been made repeatedly by you. There is not an iota of evidence to even suggest it is anything more than a false claim. There isn't a single Democrat that is going to shut up because of this ad. If anything I would expect them to print up some bright fluorescent stickers saying "Hell no preemption isn't right." "Bush war is a boondoggle for Haliburton", etc.
It isn't going to shut anyone up.
Nick
So, an ad like this should bring up some bad memories for any sentient life form.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, pretend all you like, but this 'singular' ad ties into some previous evens. Specifically those where people were forced to keep quiet shortly after September 11th. You can pretend that there was no effort to shut people up, especially those that disagreed with Bush. But I don't think even you believe that this didn't happen.
So, an ad like this should bring up some bad memories for any sentient life form.
They were forced how? By the will of the American people calling for a time of unity? Or was there some temporary police state that I missed arresting people for treasonous statements?
You make the contention of force. You show me how and who.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
They were forced how? By the will of the American people calling for a time of unity? Or was there some temporary police state that I missed arresting people for treasonous statements?
You make the contention of force. You show me how and who.
Nick
Bill Mahr, Politically Incorrect.
Not by the will of the American people, but by the will of the almighty advertisers.
Originally posted by Northgate
Bill Mahr, Politically Incorrect.
Not by the will of the American people, but by the will of the almighty advertisers.
Last time I checked, advertisers were classified under "American people" not government secret police.
Nick
1) You have to believe every stereotype you've heard about conservatives
Originally posted by trumptman
Last time I checked, advertisers were classified under "American people" not government secret police.
Nick
I never referred to the government. Try again.